11 States Ban Gay Marriage

this is a discussion within the NOLA Community Forum; May I?...look guys..When you get down to the brass tacks...It\'s not about gays wanting to prance and dance and smear it in conservatives faces that they are married...It\'s not so much about childern..because anyone deemed suitable can adopt..and gays have ...

May I?...look guys..When you get down to the brass tacks...It\'s not about gays wanting to prance and dance and smear it in conservatives faces that they are married...It\'s not so much about childern..because anyone deemed suitable can adopt..and gays have been adopting children for years

It is strictly a financial move on the part of the high ranking Activists.

If your State...does not recognize your Marriage as viable, that leaves only outside companies(or partners policy..which might not be as good) to provide health insurance..you cannot have your \'\'Life Partner\'\' on your Employers Insurance policy

The I.R.S. has not allowed gays to file as \'\'Married\'\' on thier taxes, leaving them out of the number of true married people recieveng tax breaks

The I.R.S. has not allowed gays to file as \'\'Married\'\' on thier taxes, leaving them out of the number of true married people recieveng tax breaks

Tax breaks what? Married couples get reamed when it comes to taxes. There was talk of repealing it, but if not, there is actually a marriage penalty when it comes to taxes in this country. The way they figure it is that a married couple a has two incomes in one household and that\'s an advantage of a single person running a household so the married couple should pay a higher percent. So, actually gays are better off tax-wise because they don\'t get hit with the married penalty although a couple might live together.

We\'ve had this discussion before (and I\'m not going back and reading every bit of what was said above). The bottomline of this discussion is that what people FOR samesex marriage tend to ignore is that this a position intended to broaden the rights of the the populace although thepopulace is opposed to such measure. At this time and previously men can only marry women and women can only marry men. That is a rule that applies to everybody.

Now, a small group of people want to have extra rights and be allowed to marry a member of the same sex. This has been denied by the rest of society. Homosexuals are not being deprived of anything because NOBODY can do what the homosexuals are requesting that they be allowed to do. To allow samesex marriage would be to expand the definition of marriage for everybody. However, everybody in these states were given a vote and they decided not to allow it.

Rather than deny a right to a small group of people as some would have you view it, the majority simply denied expanding the rights of the populace as a whole - and not by any small margin.

I agree with someone in this thread who said put it to the public and let them vote.
I would vote to let anyone marry who wants to. In my opinion, if they want the same F'ed up problems that married heteros have, then let them have it. haha
They don't know how good they have it. If they think that piece of paper means ANYTHING at all to some people &lt;look at the divorce rates> Then why keep them from getting it?
I believe in God, I'm a Republican and I say put it to the general public to vote on it.
My vote would be a huge, resounding YES for gay marriage.
&lt;and NO I'm not a divorce Lawyer, as many see, this would probably double their venue of cash 8) >